Bernie, check out the entire history of both Judaism and Xty ;-)
to see the degree to which thoughtful Christians have tried to work
all this out. It is not easy.

Now, a perfectly valid conclusion could be "since morality that
supposedly comes from God is not easy, therefore it doesn't come from
God." That is a conclusion on can reach. I don't, because.....

Forget Judaism and Xty--in the OT itself we see later reflections on
previous laws that try to account for the change in context. The irony
is that even the divine law has a contextual dimensions--even in the
Bible. Even within the OT.

That is where my "you are asking a 5 year question" comment comes in.
Do you see the phenomenon I just described in the Bible? Do you really
see it and embrace it as fact? Do you see that the Bible itself has a
"legal flexibility" because law is not immutable so much as contextual
(don't press me on that at this point, as if it is an either/or..I
don't mean that but I don't ant us to get off track).

Pete

On Nov 9, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

> It is funny how morals are supposed to come from God, and Moses and
> Jesus taught specifically about how to deal with violence, but when
> I ask a specific question for a specific answer it seems so
> difficult to get a clear and concise answer as to how a Christian
> should respond specifically. You'd think this would be an easy
> one. Instead, my motives have to be continually questioned. And
> the answers continue to avoid specificity and continually aim for
> generalities.
>
> I think the line of questioning exposes the 'smoke and mirrors' of
> the claim that 'morals come from God.' And this is supposed to be
> one of the very easy ones... much easier than euthanasia or
> abortion, for example.
>
> Since one of my Christian friends said that he thinks the line of
> evidence of "morals come from God" as one of the best arguments for
> God, it is the subject of my next meetup group:
> http://www.meetup.com/sciligion/>
> The author of "Good without God" (Greg Epstein, the Harvard Humanist
> Chaplain) is also coming to Portland and I hope to attend his lecture:
> http://www.meetup.com/cfi-portland/calendar/11663129/>
> I haven't heard the interview with Greg at NPR yet, but it is here,
> fyi:
> http://www.hereandnow.org/2007/09/show-rundown-for-9202007>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:55 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: RE: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>
> Pete said:
> " You seem to be assuming that "turn the other cheek" is intended by
> Jesus to have absolutely validity regardless of circumstances? Am I
> reading you correctly?"
>
> I'm trying to find out how you, as an experienced and highly trained
> Christian, actually apply the teaching of Christ to an actual
> practical application. So it s a specific example trying to draw
> out your personal opinion on a specific situation.
>
> Pete said:
> "As for other situations, re: C, if it is a troubled teen I would take
> steps to have him apprehended and given the help he needs. A is the
> only real option in the case of an oppressed wife or child. I don't
> think I need to go, do I?"
>
> I'm trying to find out how you would respond "in the heat" if you
> could pre-meditate your response. Yes- apprehending him would be
> another choice. That is in line with the option of self-defense, as
> opposed to 'turning the other cheek' (no defense) or repaying 'evil
> for evil' (an active-aggressive mirror-type response).
>
> When you say you would choose "A" (turn the cheek) for an oppressed
> wife or child, it sounds like you are saying to use this option when
> the physical threat isn't much of a threat. Is that why you
> mentioned spouse or child? So you are saying if they are a real
> physical threat to you (more powerful than you), then you would try
> self-defense (protect yourself, get away, or apprehend them if
> possible), but if they are weaker, you would turn the other cheek?
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:04 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>
> Bernie,
>
> You seem to be assuming that "turn the other cheek" is intended by
> Jesus to have absolutely validity regardless of circumstances? Am I
> reading you correctly?
>
> As for other situations, re: C, if it is a troubled teen I would take
> steps to have him apprehended and given the help he needs. A is the
> only real option in the case of an oppressed wife or child. I don't
> think I need to go, do I?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. What are you trying to
> demonstrate, for, surely, I sense more here than an innocent line of
> questioning.
>
> Pete
>
>
> On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>
>> Pete said:
>> " Accepting for the sake of argument the three options you give, It
>> depends on the situation."
>>
>> Then could you give two examples of situations that would give you
>> different answers?
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 3:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>
>> Accepting for the sake of argument the three options you give, It
>> depends on the situation.
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2009, at 8:09 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>
>>> Pete said:
>>> "Yes, Jesus was correct. Next question."
>>>
>>> Next question, regarding specific application:
>>>
>>> Pete, suppose someone is mad at you and slaps you very hard across
>>> the face, so hard as to even knock out a tooth.
>>>
>>> Which would be the best Christian response for you (as an immediate
>>> "next step" response in this confrontation):
>>> A. Turn the other cheek, making it easy for them to strike again
>>> B. Defend yourself against another attack and/or try to leave
>>> C. Strike back to "teach them a lesson"
>>>
>>> If you don't like those options, and think there is another one,
>>> please specify.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Pete Enns [mailto:peteenns@mac.com]
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:19 PM
>>> To: Dehler, Bernie
>>> Cc: ASA
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>>
>>> Yes, Jesus was correct.
>>>
>>> Next question.
>>>
>>> Pete
>>>
>>> On Nov 8, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>
>>>> "It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are
>>>> not
>>>> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions
>>>> rather
>>>> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking."
>>>>
>>>> Hi Pete- overall- as far as Christian interpretation of things, I
>>>> pretty much agree with you. However, my question is more specific
>>>> to the time and place of Jesus' "active theological thinking."
>>>>
>>>> When Jesus talked about "turning the other cheek" I think what he
>>>> meant, given the context is pretty clear. And I think we might
>>>> agree on what he meant. My question goes beyond what most
>>>> Christians want to do, and this is ask the question "was Jesus
>>>> correct?" (I'm sure most Christian philosophers are trained to ask
>>>> such questions so it is no problem for most of them; but all other
>>>> Christians probably think it is out-of-bounds to "question God.")
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-
>>>> owner@lists.calvin.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Pete Enns
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:49 AM
>>>> To: Murray Hogg
>>>> Cc: ASA
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] A question on morals (OT and NT)
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to comment more later, but I agree with this. A former
>>>> professor of mine, Paul Hanson, used to talk about the "form/
>>>> reform"
>>>> dynamic on the OT, where particular ways of thinking gain assent
>>>> but
>>>> then are themselves later reformed/changed. Chronicles is one
>>>> global
>>>> example of this.
>>>>
>>>> It is worth asking, esp. in the evangelical world, whether we are
>>>> not
>>>> expecting too much of the Bible as a rule book of propositions
>>>> rather
>>>> than as a book that reflects active theological thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Some of you may no longer be wondering why I left WTS..... :-)
>>>>
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:38 AM, Murray Hogg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Pete,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see where the Talmud might be an interesting analogue - but
>>>>> I'd have to play with it a bit myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> As it is, the suggestion spawns one random thought:
>>>>> Regardless of what dates we put on the various OT books and
>>>>> portions
>>>>> thereof it seems to be pretty evident that the OT isn't the
>>>>> unvarnished account of Israel's history that many would like it to
>>>>> be. But this fact alone suggests that one doesn't need to even go
>>>>> as
>>>>> far as the Talmud to discover a dynamic engagement with the
>>>>> tradition as we already see just this very thing within the pages
>>>>> of
>>>>> the canonical OT itself. The idea, then, that the covenant
>>>>> community
>>>>> EVER had a static notion of scripture might be a tad unrealistic
>>>>> and
>>>>> we may well need to accept that dynamic engagement with the
>>>>> tradition has ALWAYS been part-and-parcel of the covenant
>>>>> community's practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the tradition eventually ends up becoming codified -
>>>>> first in the OT and subsequently in the Talmud and NT (same sort
>>>>> of
>>>>> thing happens in Islam with the Koran and Hadiths) - but I wonder
>>>>> (and it's just an idle musing for now) just what this suggests for
>>>>> our theory of Scripture? All too often the focus is on the
>>>>> codification. But what happens if one focuses on the dynamic
>>>>> nature
>>>>> of the tradition in its formation and subsequent reception?
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that the discontinuity and the continuity are, in
>>>>> fact,
>>>>> one and the same thing? That is, might it not be the case that the
>>>>> one constant throughout the entire history of the tradition is
>>>>> that
>>>>> the tradition itself has always been dynamically appropriated?
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps our maxim should be "Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme
>>>>> chose" or something of that order?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blessings,
>>>>> Murray
>>>>>
>>>>> Pete Enns wrote:
>>>>>> I think trajectory is a good model for the relationship between
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> testament.
>>>>>> Another model I have toyed with--very simply--is that the NT is
>>>>>> analogous to to the Talmud. Both reflect attempts to engage the
>>>>>> Bible/OT in view of changing circumstances: for Jews, the exile
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for Christians the death and resurrection of the messiah.
>>>>>> I think the trajectory and Talmud models together aim at
>>>>>> addressing
>>>>>> the continuity and discontinuity seen in the NT vis-a-vis the OT.
>>>>>> To get back to the original point, I think Bernie is concerned
>>>>>> about the fact that discontinuity is something that resides in a
>>>>>> book that is supposedly written on some level by God.
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 9 13:36:24 2009